Sony Cyber-shot WX50 vs Canon PowerShot SX230 HS

Winner
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-WX50

69

Canon PowerShot SX230 HS

43

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Sony Cyber-shot WX50

Wide aperture
Aperture
f/2.6
Wide angle lens
Wide angle
25 mm
Really small
Size
Ultra compact (92×52×19 mm)
High ISO
Light sensitivity
12,800 ISO
 

Reasons to buy the Canon PowerShot SX230 HS

High-speed framerate
High speed movies
240 fps
Supports 24p
24p movies
For that film look
GPS
Built-in GPS
Great for travel
Fastest shutter speed
Fast shutter speed
1/3200 of a second

galleries

Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Canon PowerShot SX230 HS.
Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-WX50.

competitors

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-WX50 Competitors

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-WX220

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-WX220

Travel zoom

$198 - $228

Screen size Significantly larger screen
Zoom Slightly more zoom
Aperture Narrower aperture
Sony CyberShot DSC-W800

Sony CyberShot DSC-W800

Ultra compact

$120

Size Smaller
Lowest price Cheaper
Movie format Lower resolution movies
Sony Cybershot DSC-WX7

Sony Cybershot WX7

Compact

$163

Screen resolution Higher resolution screen
Screen size Larger screen
Light sensitivity Worse maximum light sensitivity

Canon PowerShot SX230 HS Competitors

Canon PowerShot SX210 IS

Canon PowerShot SX210 IS

Travel zoom

$239

Size Slightly smaller
Thickness Slightly thinner
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies
Canon EOS M10

Canon EOS M10

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$449 - $599 with 15-45mm lens

Light sensitivity Better maximum light sensitivity
Touch screen Has a touch screen
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies
Canon PowerShot SX610 HS

Canon PowerShot SX610 HS

Travel zoom

$178 - $199

Wide angle Significantly better wide angle
Screen resolution Higher resolution screen
High-speed framerate Doesn't record high-speed movies

discussion

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-WX50
Cyber-shot WX50
Sony

Report a correction
Canon PowerShot SX230 HS
PowerShot SX230 HS
Canon

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments